Case 3304039/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Lockett v AC Care Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304039/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Lockett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting under Rule 21 without attendance from the respondent, found that AC Care Services Ltd remained the claimant's employer throughout and that there had been no TUPE transfer. It found that the claimant's employment ended on 31 December 2021, not 12 December 2021, and that the dismissal reason was redundancy. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had not worked after 10 December 2021, so no further wages were due for work after that date.
On the arrears claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant as a truthful witness but held that the documentary evidence did not establish an underpayment from June 2021 to 10 December 2021. It noted that there was only one incomplete payslip extract referring to £18 per hour, no full breakdown of the senior carer and carer hours worked, and no contemporaneous challenge by the claimant to the amounts paid. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the redundancy, holiday and breach of contract claims. It calculated statutory redundancy pay at £271.51 using an actual week's pay of £135.77 under section 224 ERA 1996 and the redundancy formula applicable on the facts it found. It awarded £119.12 for payment in lieu of accrued holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, after subtracting holiday payments already made during employment. It also awarded £873.90 for breach of contract, comprising pay for 11 to 31 December 2021 and one month's notice in lieu, and the total award was £1,264.53.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded after the tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. The calculation used an actual week's pay of £135.77 under section 224 ERA 1996, resulting in 2 x actual week's pay. | Upheld | — | £272 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded damages for contractual sums due on termination, including pay for 11 to 31 December 2021 and one month's notice in lieu. It accepted the respondent's later correspondence as acknowledging those liabilities. | Upheld | — | £874 |
| Holiday pay | Payment in lieu of accrued holiday was awarded under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal used a 52-week average week’s pay figure and deducted holiday amounts already shown as paid during employment. | Upheld | — | £119 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal was not persuaded that the evidence established shortfalls in pay from June 2021 to 10 December 2021. It noted the absence of a full breakdown of the hours and rates said to be due, and the lack of a contemporaneous challenge to the payslips. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,265
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 21 / Limoine v Sharma EAT 0094/19
- s.224 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 14
- Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 16
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.